Town Square

Post a New Topic

Another legal setback for Atherton

Original post made by court watcher, Atherton: other, on Oct 26, 2009

A San Mateo Court judge dealt a severe blow to the Town of Atherton and its efforts to stop the former finance director from getting his job back.

The details are in the link below. See case number CIV 479972:

Web Link

This is a tentative ruling and is subject to being contested by the Town.

This motion is one that the Town simply cannot afford to lose, so expect the Town to do do all it can tomorrow to reverse this devastating ruling.

[Portion removed; unfounded accusation]

Comments (2)

Like this comment
Posted by Hubris
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Oct 26, 2009 at 9:13 pm

The BIG NEWS with the John johns case is that, after Atherton beat John Johns up to the point of being at perhaps the lowest point in his life, [portion removed] John offered Atherton to settle all litigation for just $10,000.

Now, anyone with any sense of fiduciary duty whatsoever, would have jumped to take that settlement – no matter how they felt about the merits of the case – because there is always risk in litigation and it would cost Atherton far, far more to litigate the case than $10,000.

However, the council, motivated probably by hubris and ego, countered with a settlement offer a few thousand dollars. Note, this counter can't be based on principle (i.e., don't settle at any price because the case had no alleged merit), otherwise no counter would have been made at all.

This was grossly irresponsible on Atherton's part and is a good illustration of why the parcel tax must fail. Unless a strong message is sent that litigation can't continue this way, more of our money will be wasted.

Oc course, I believe the days of John accepting even anything close to that amount are long over.

I am not John Johns. I am a taxpaying Atherton resident. Almanac, rather than delete this, do some investigative journalism to determine how the council could possibly take us down this road. It's insane.

Like this comment
Posted by Hubris
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Oct 26, 2009 at 9:25 pm

The part deleted in my post above was a comment on my part that Atherton had colluded with the District Attorney to conduct a sham criminal investigation against John Johns.

The Almanac staff member that deleted my post, presumably because it is not a provable statement, is technically correct. It is an opinion.

On the other hand, opinions get expressed on these forums all the time, including in the Menlo Park boards. My opinion is that criminal investigations should not be used in any way to lean on someone to refrain from exercising their civil rights. I am reasonably certain that if ANYONE had a criminal investigation launched against them after suing their former employer, they would feel the same way. It is actually an issue that should concern all of us.

By the way, the settlement escapade I referred to above happened quite awhile ago.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 17 comments | 4,464 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 986 views

Couples: When Wrong Admit It; When Right; Shut Up
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 486 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 423 views